Content deleted Content added
→On suggested move: not sure I follow |
My full suggestion |
||
Line 69:
:::: Can we agree that, as article titles, ''descriptions'' are inferior to ''names'', assuming a canonical name exists? I would think that's kind of obvious, actually. Sometimes there is no agreed name, and you have to fall back to a description, but that's an unfortunate necessity. But pretty much every published work has a name, namely its title, so I don't see any justification for titling this article with a description. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 19:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
''On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems''
Line 77:
:I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying there's a disanalogy because this article is (currently) more about the content than about the paper per se? If so, then the title should refer to the content, and not to the published work; it currently refers to the published work.
:But really I don't think the content of the paper is a very natural topic for an article, given the divergent character of the two results. I think we ''should'' have an article about the paper, and I think it should be named after the paper, and it should spend more time on the paper per se than it currently does. (For example, currently, the article doesn't even seem to give the journal in which the paper was published, which I believe was ''[[Crelle's Journal]]''.) --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 21:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I was writing in one of my private files. I didn't realize until later that I wasn't. But you got part of the gist of what I planned to write about. I'm thinking that there should be two Wikipedia articles, similar to the way Gödel's work is divided into two parts. The article on Gödel's paper just covers material on the paper itself. I'd be happy to write a second article that would be similar in format to ''On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems'' and would be called ''On a Property of the Collection of All Real Algebraic Numbers''. It would include an outline of the Cantor's article, which by the way also contains an improvement of a theorem of Minnigerode that most coverage of the article leaves out (Dauben does mention it). It would also cover translations of the article, including the 1883 French translation and how that came about (and, of course, Ewald's English translation). It would also give the German name of the article and the journal in which it was published. By the way, in the current article, the section [[Georg Cantor's first set theory article#The influence of Weierstrass and Kronecker on Cantor's article]] contains the sentence: "Cantor would submit his article to Crelle's Journal."
I think one problem we are facing is that the current Wikipedia article goes far beyond Cantor's article: Starting with the Development section, it mentions 16 other mathematicians. So titling the article '''''On a Property of the Collection of All Real Algebraic Numbers''''' doesn't capture the article's content but would capture the content of the 2nd article I'm offering to write. The math history section of the current Wikipedia article covers a slice of math history that came about because of Cantor's article. For everyone reading this: I welcome suggestions as what to call the current Wikipedia article that would accurately capture both its math and math history content (I'm working on this myself). In the absence of title suggestions: What's wrong with having two articles, one titled '''''On a Property of the Collection of All Real Algebraic Numbers''''' and one titled '''Georg Cantor's first set theory article'''? [[User:RJGray|RJGray]] ([[User talk:RJGray|talk]]) 22:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
| |||